Fair Work says informal chat messages don't count as formal performance warnings
A Sydney employer with 28 documented performance failures still lost an unfair dismissal case because of procedural failures.
The Fair Work Commission ruled on February 6, 2026 that relying on workplace chat apps and verbal feedback doesn't cut it when terminating an employee, no matter how legitimate the performance concerns.
Rujiang Wen worked as a blinds installer for Sydney VIP Blinds Pty Ltd from 2020 until his dismissal on August 6, 2025. The company had compiled an extensive record of installation defects, from falling roller blinds to protruding screws that created safety hazards for customers. In 2025 alone, 28 of Wen's installations required follow-up rectification work.
Director Mr Xiang testified that he had traveled to various job sites repeatedly to demonstrate proper installation techniques. The company presented six WeChat exchanges spanning October 2022 to May 2025 showing criticism of Wen's work, photographs of defective installations, and questions about how the problems occurred.
But when it came time to actually fire Wen, the process collapsed. Xiang didn't deliver the termination himself. Instead, he instructed the company accountant to tell Wen he was no longer required. There was no written notice. No formal meeting. No explanation of why his employment was ending.
Wen testified that Xiang simply told him "don't ever come back." That was it.
Deputy President Roberts acknowledged the WeChat messages showed the employer was dissatisfied with Wen's performance but found they didn't constitute formal warnings. The Commission concluded "it is unlikely that the applicant would have taken from the messages that his ongoing employment was at risk."
Even though the Commission accepted that Xiang had given Wen verbal warnings in early 2025, and even though there were genuine performance issues, the lack of proper process proved fatal to the employer's case.
The decision noted specific examples where verbal warnings aligned with documented defects. Xiang said he warned Wen about falling roller blinds on February 7, 2025, matching a January 22, 2025 job that required rectification. Similar patterns appeared in March, April and May 2025.
None of it mattered. As Deputy President Roberts stated, "the applicant was not told why he was being dismissed and was not given a reasonable opportunity to give his response before the decision was made and the dismissal effected."
The 17-employee company had no specialist HR expertise, which the Commission acknowledged would typically result in less formal procedures than larger organizations. But Roberts made clear that size offers no refuge from basic fairness requirements, noting that "employees, including those of small to medium sized businesses, are entitled to receive procedural fairness during disciplinary and dismissal processes."
The Commission indicated it will order compensation equivalent to four weeks' wages, reduced by ten percent for Wen's failure to provide evidence of job search efforts. The parties have been given seven days to confer and agree on the final calculation. The Commission determined that even with proper performance management, Wen's ongoing performance issues meant he likely wouldn't have lasted more than another month anyway.
The message for HR teams is stark. Documentation matters, but informal communication channels are not documentation. Performance conversations need to be formal, written, and crystal clear about consequences. And when termination comes, the decision maker needs to deliver the news directly with written reasons before the employee walks out the door.
